The first of these editions was Owen's 1915 Oxford Classical Text of the poems of exile. In the preface Owen acknowledges the influence of Ehwald: "adiumento primario erat R. Ehwaldi, doctrinae Ouidianae iudicis peritissimi, uere aureus libellus ... in quo excussis perpensisque codicibus poetaeque locutione ad perpendiculum exacta rectam Ponticarum edendarum normam uir doctus stabilire instituit' (viii). In most instances Owen follows Ehwald's recommendations, altering in to ab at i 9, prospicerem to aspicerem at ix 23, and at ix 44 abandoning Korn's decretis for the manuscripts' secretis.
Owen's reliance on Ehwald was noticed by Housman (903-4) in his short and accurate review of Owen's edition: 'In the ex Ponto Mr Owen had displayed less originality [than in his 1889 and 1894 editions of the Tristia] and consequently has less to repent of. Most of the changes in this edition are made in pursuance of orders issued by R. Ehwald in his Kritische Beiträge of 1896; but let it be counted to Mr Owen for righteousness that at III.7.37 and IV.15.42 he has refused to execute the sanguinary mandates of his superior officer'.
As in Owen's earlier edition, the apparatus is so short as to be misleading. His choice of manuscripts is too small, and exaggerates the importance of B and C; even of these two manuscripts his report is inadequate. At ix 73 he rightly prints laxate; the apparatus gives no indication that this is a conjecture, and that all manuscripts, including B and C, read iactate, which he had printed in 1894. At xi 21, where B gives mihi, indicated by Burman as the correct reading, Owen prints tibi and does not mention the variant in the apparatus. The situation is naturally worse with readings of manuscripts other than B and C, and with conjectures. In general, Owen's apparatus can be trusted neither as a report even of the principal readings of the few manuscripts he used, or as a register of critics' views of the constitution of the text.
In the same year as Owen's second text there appeared at Budapest Geza Némethy's commentary on the Ex Ponto, of which twenty-six pages are devoted to the fourth book. The notes are too sparse and elementary to form an adequate commentary, consisting largely of simple glosses. They are a useful supplement to a plain text of the poems, however, and Némethy sometimes notices points missed by others: he correctly glosses Augusti as "Tiberii imperatoris" at ix 70. The notes are based on Merkel's second edition; Némethy lists in a preface his few departures from Merkel's text.
In 1922 Friedrich Levy published his first edition of the Ex Ponto as part of a new Teubner edition of the works of Ovid. The apparatus was a reduced version of that prepared by Ehwald, 'Qui ut totus prelis subiceretur ... propter saeculi angustias fieri non potuit'. Levy's text is virtually identical to Owen's, but the apparatus is more complete. It contains a full report of B and C, and also of the thirteenth-century Gothanus memb. II 121. This last manuscript has the correct cernet at ix 46, where most manuscripts read credet; but otherwise its readings are of very poor quality, consisting of simple misreadings (i 24 magnificas for munificas, vii 30 uento for uenit, viii 37 habendus for abunde), simplified word order (vi 25 tuas lacrimas pariter for tuas pariter lacrimas, xvi 39 et iuuenes essent for essent et iuuenes), and intrusive glosses (viii 61 captiuis for superatis, xvi 47 me laedere for proscindere). The manuscript does not deserve the important place it has in the editions of Levy, Luck, and André[16]; Ehwald presumably included it in his apparatus because of its easy accessibility to him at Gotha, where he lived. No other manuscripts are regularly reported, so Levy's apparatus gives a false impression of the evidence for the text, although he often reports isolated readings from the manuscripts of Heinsius.
Levy omitted conjectures 'quatenus falsae uel superuacuae uidebantur'; the result is that Korn's elegant decretis does not appear even in the apparatus at ix 44, and the same fate befalls Scaliger's coactus at xiii 27.
In 1924 the Loeb Classical Library published A. L. Wheeler's text and translation of the Tristia and Ex Ponto. His text is based on Merkel's second edition, on Ehwald's Beiträge, and on Owen's Oxford Classical Text. In several places he rightly abandons B's reading, printing hanc for ah at i 16 and perstas for praestas at x 83; at iv 45 he was clearly tempted to print Heinsius' quamlibet. His judgment is good, and if Ehwald and Owen had supplied him with more information on other manuscripts and on the Heinsius-Burman vulgate, his text might well have superseded all previous editions. His translation is accurate, and in corrupt passages indicates the awkwardness of the original; I have often quoted from it.
In 1938 there appeared the elaborate Paravia edition of F. W. Levy, who in the period following his earlier edition had altered his name to F. W. Lenz. The text is virtually unchanged from his edition of 1922, but has a much larger apparatus, which includes a large number of conjectures omitted from the earlier edition; I am indebted to Lenz for many of the conjectures I report, particularly at xvi 33. The large size of the apparatus is, however, deceptive; most of the manuscripts he knew of only from the reports of Heinsius, Korn and Owen, and the reports are therefore incomplete: the only manuscripts reliably reported are B and C. Since Lenz does not usually give the lemma for the variants reported, it is difficult to tell which manuscripts offer the reading in the text. Much space is wasted by reports of the readings of several heavily interpolated mediaeval florilegia; more is wasted by an undue attention to mediaeval spellings and attempts to reproduce abbreviations and to show the precise appearance of secondary corrections. These factors combine to render the apparatus virtually unreadable.
In 1963 Georg Luck published the Artemis edition of the Tristia and Ex Ponto, with a German translation by Wilhelm Willige. Luck shows some independence from Lenz, at i 16 printing hanc for ah, at iii 27 sed et for subito, at viii 71 mauis for maius, at viii 86 distet for distat, at ix 73 laxate for iactate, at xii 13 producatur for ut dicatur, and at xiv 7 muter for mittar, each time rightly. He suggests a new conjecture for the incurable xvi 33, and a new and possibly correct punctuation of xii 19. The apparatus is misleading, consisting of isolated readings from B and C and a small number of readings from other manuscripts. No indication is given that hanc at i 16 or pars at i 35 are found only in a few manuscripts, and not in B or C. Luck criticizes modern editors for ignoring the discoveries of their predecessors, and rightly prints Heinsius' Gigantas (codd -es) at viii 59. However, he shows no direct knowledge of Heinsius' notes or of the Burman vulgate, making no mention of such readings as Gete for Getae at iii 52, leuastis for leuatis at vi 44, or fouet for mouet at xi 20. The oldest edition named in his apparatus is that of Riese.
In 1977 F. Della Corte published an Italian translation of the Ex Ponto with an accompanying commentary, of which fifty-eight pages are devoted to the fourth book. Most of the commentary consists of extended paraphrase of the poems; I have found it of little assistance.